FEEDING THE FUTURE - INNOVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIMARY FOOD PRODUCTION IN
THE UK TO 2030
Prepared by the Joint Commissioning Group1
(Principal Editor; Chris Pollock, Aberystwyth University)
1 Full details of the membership of the Joint Commissioning Group can be found in Appendix 1
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 RESEARCH PRIORITIES. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 NEXT STEPS 6 FEEDING THE FUTURE - INNOVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIMARY FOOD PRODUCTION IN THE UK TO 2030 7 I. Introduction 7
Current investment patterns 9 Current investment into applied producer-oriented research 11 Conclusions 12
II. INFORMATION-GATHERING AND EVALUATION 13 III. FINDINGS 14
1 Utilisation of modern technologies to improve the precision and efficiency of key agricultural management practices. 15 2 Apply modern genetic and breeding approaches to improve the quality, sustainability, resilience and profitability of crops and farm animals . 16 3 Use systems-based approaches to understand better and manage interactions between soil, water and crop/animal processes 17 4 Develop integrated approaches to the effective management of crop and animal diseases within farming systems. 18 5 Develop evidence-based approaches to value ecosystem service delivery by land users and incorporate these approaches into effective decision support systems at the enterprise or grouped enterprise level. 19 6 Extend the training and professional development of researchers, practitioners and advisors to promote delivery of the targets above. 20 7 Improve the use of social and economic science to promote development, uptake and use of sustainable, resilient and profitable agricultural practice that can deliver affordable, safe and high-quality products. 20
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 21 V. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT AND UPTAKE OF INNOVATION: 23 VI. NEXT STEPS 25 VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS 26 VIII. APPENDICES 27
Appendix 1. Membership and affiliation of the Joint Commissioning Group. 27 Appendix 2. Reports and Strategy Documents used in the evaluation phase of this study to assess the breadth and coverage of current applied R&D in the Land Use Sector 30 Appendix 3 Collated Workshop Outputs 32 Appendix 4 Exemplars of successful integrated R&D programmes in the agricultural sector. 45
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS With the objective of identifying generic R&D priorities, an independent group of producers (The Joint Commissioning Group) has undertaken a series of workshops and parallel consultations with key industry stakeholders. If these priorities are addressed in a timely manner and with sufficient vigour, the contention is that positive outcomes can be anticipated for the UK industry that will protect and develop its capacity to respond positively to many challenges and opportunities associated with increased volatility in global markets both for inputs and products. Although the remit of the joint commissioning group related only to R&D relevant to food production, the researchable issues are also relevant to the development of alternative products from land. The generic issues are grouped into seven areas based upon the findings of the workshops The findings summarised below should be viewed as a suite of proposals that could form the basis for future concerted actions by a range of funders.
RESEARCH PRIORITIES 1 Utilisation of modern technologies to improve the precision and efficiency of key agricultural management practices.
• Develop remote monitoring, control and application technologies to optimise input use efficiency, improve animal health and welfare, sustain product quality and safety, reduce the impact of machinery traffic on land and promote effective delivery of environmental goods and services
• Integrate and utilise the increasing volume of yield mapping and recording, soil, crop and animal data in order to develop better decision support tools for integrated farming systems.
• Improve platform flexibility, inter-‐operability and applicability to the UK environment in order to promote delivery of the above.
2. Apply modern genetic and breeding approaches to improve the quality, sustainability, resilience and profitability of crops and farm animals .
• Develop practical approaches for managing, curating, disseminating and using "omics" information and related large data sets in effective precision breeding of plants and animals.
• Use better understanding of plant architecture, development and biochemistry to identify breeding targets for improved resource use efficiency and tolerance of biotic and abiotic stress in crops.
• Generate more effective improvement strategies for the ruminant sector that identify and manipulate relevant traits and their genetic drivers rather than emphasise specific breed improvement.
3. Use systems-based approaches to understand better and manage interactions between soil, water and crop/animal processes
• Improve understanding of rhizosphere processes and the interactions between flows of carbon, water and nutrients under different management.
• Improve management of soil health under arable, horticultural, pastoral and mixed systems, and link this to better water and waste management.
• Improve support tools for the optimal management of agricultural systems that optimise potential productivity whilst mitigating the associated GHG emissions and other forms of diffuse pollution.
• Develop options to optimise the production and utilisation of protein within UK farming systems.
4. Develop integrated approaches to the effective management of crop and animal diseases within farming systems.
• Develop strategies (including novel rotations) that are compatible with continuing restrictions on the availability of approved chemical controls for both plant and animal disease and for weeds.
• Continue to translate improved understanding of the genetic basis of disease resistance into breeding targets for both plants and animals that offer durable and sustainable control options
• Promote the development of effective vaccines and control strategies for endemic and emerging animal diseases.
• Improve the linkage between welfare-‐oriented management and the utilisation of precision breeding approaches to reduce the incidence of stress-related, non-‐pathogenic disorders in livestock.
5. Develop evidence-based approaches to value ecosystem service delivery by land users and incorporate these approaches into effective decision support systems at the enterprise or grouped enterprise level.
• Develop new models for integrated mixed-‐farming based around co location of specialist enterprises, optimising value from co-‐products and generating a "Circular Agricultural Economy"’.
• Develop (in concert with other countries in the EU and elsewhere) robust tools for measuring, valuing and monitoring ecosystem service outputs from a range of farming systems. Incorporate these into effective Decision Support tools.
• Develop regional models to assist policy-‐makers to manage the relationship between changes in the patterns of land ownership, tenure and use and the delivery of essential ecosystem services.
6. Extend the training and professional development of researchers, practitioners and advisors to promote delivery of the targets above.
• Work with HEIs, RCUK and BIS to identify key research/technical skills that are in short supply or absent in the UK and develop approaches to improve the supply of graduates and postgraduates with relevant training both as researchers and as technical support to agribusiness in general.
• Work with HEIs and FEIs to develop CPD availability across agribusiness that will integrate with and support existing extension activities.
7. Improve the use of social and economic science to promote development, uptake and use of sustainable, resilient and profitable agricultural practice that can deliver affordable, safe and high-quality products.
• Develop a series of "good practice" case studies for effective knowledge transfer and evaluate common features so that future research can be commissioned with specifications that maximise the likelihood of effective delivery.
• Investigate options to derive additional "best practice" benefits from wider dissemination of the outputs of private sector research by the agricultural supply industry without compromising company profitability
• Identify the potential economic and social constraints on farmers that might slow or prevent uptake of new knowledge, and how these constraints might alter over time.
RECOMMENDATIONS In order to promote this programme of long-term strategic and applied research, the joint commissioning group presents five specific recommendations for the attention of funders, UK government and research providers.
A. Levy bodies and other producer groups should consider ways in which they could facilitate the establishment of joint programmes based on the recommendations above and to lever additional investment from RCs, Government Departments and TSB etc.
B. RCs, government departments and, where appropriate, HEIs and Research Institutes should seek broader representation from producers on relevant councils, boards and committees. Levy bodies and other producer groups should nominate representatives who will work to foster long-term, integrated approaches to the challenges outlined in the document rather than promote narrow sectoral interests.
C. Given the increasing policy emphasis on land-based issues covering food production, alternative land use, climate change mitigation and the protection of natural capital, there needs to be an integrated consideration of options to improve the provision of advice, training and
skilled manpower at a UK level, both in terms of producers and of the skills within the R&D and consultancy base.
D. The policy and strategy implications associated with delivery of the research recommendations within this report should be considered holistically by both government and the funders of basic and strategic research. In governmental terms, there is a need to ensure consistency of policy and approach between different government departments with an interest in land and water use, food and energy production and the protection of natural capital.
E. In terms of the funders of research, thought needs to be given to how future strategic decisions over blue skies and responsive mode funding can be managed to protect the UK capacity for scientific excellence whilst addressing skills shortages in key areas such as soil science.
NEXT STEPS
1. Representatives of the producer funding organisations should consider Recommendation A and seek agreement on the modalities for consolidated funding of longer-term generic research.
2. Following this, discussions should take place with other relevant funders (RCs, Government Departments, TSB etc) to agree a priority order and timelines for addressing the research priorities and to establish procedures to specify, commission, monitor and disseminate outputs.
3. Simultaneously with 1, representatives of the producer funding organisations should contact BBSRC, NERC and other relevant organisations with proposals to increase producer representation
4. The BIS review on agri-food technology offers an excellent opportunity for producers to raise issues relating to KT and re-establishing the relevant skills and expertise base within the UK. AHDB should submit relevant findings from this report and other, more detailed comments as part of the call for evidence.
5. In terms of promoting a consistent approach within government to sustaining production agriculture as an essential foundation for the UK food and drink industry, the Joint Commissioning Group should work with other interested parties to develop a common position.
6. The Joint Commissioning Group should discuss with BBSRC the implications of recommendation E. The Group should also identify any priority areas where skills shortages are currently constraining progress and submit them as part of their evidence to the current BIS review.
Feeding the Future -‐ Innovation Requirements for Primary Food Production in the UK to 2030
I. Introduction Rationale. Ever since Malthus, concerns has been expressed regarding the capacity of agriculture to feed an ever-increasing population. To date, these concerns have been groundless, based upon increasing the yields of crops and animals via the application of science and technology and by increasing the area of land under cultivation for crops and pastures. There are those who feel that this process can continue, and that the global food system is potentially resilient enough to cope with future demands providing that underlying issues of equity and social value are addressed (IAASTD 2008 2). However, an increasing number of international groupings of academics, politicians and producers feel that the first half of the 21st century will bring challenges that cannot be addressed by the continuation of existing approaches to increasing food production. These challenges have been summarised by Beddington (3) who talks about a "perfect storm" of inter-related and additive factors summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Factors likely to constrain the ability of the global food chain to meet demands by mid-century (Royal Society, 20094) 1 Increase of population to 9bn, needing yield increases of up to 50% to maintain
current levels of nutrition. 2 Increased per capita incomes, leading to increased resource consumption and
demand for meat and dairy products. 3 Increased competition for land for both urbanisation and alternative uses such as
bioenergy and biorenewables. 4 Increased competition for water, amplified by shifts in availability in certain
regions. 5 Potential negative effects of climate change on yields in lower latitudes. 6 Increasing competition for (and expense of) key inputs (fertilizer, fuel
agrochemicals etc.). 7 Slowing of increases in agricultural productivity. 8 Increased awareness of the need to protect (or improve) the provision of non-
costed ecosystem services derived from land. T here have been a number of analyses both in the UK and elsewhere of the options available to address these challenges. The most significant
2 IAASTD (2008). Agriculture at a crossroads: global summary for decision makers. Available online at: http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20 Summary%20for%20Decision%20Makers%20(English). 3 Beddington, J (2011) The Future of Farming. International Journal of Agricultural Management 1(2), 2-6 4 The Royal Society (2009). RS 1608:Reaping the Benefits. Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. 72 pp. ISBN: 978-0-85403-784-1
documents, from a UK standpoint are the summary outputs from the 2010 Foresight review (5) and the report by the Royal Society in 2009 (3) Both of these documents argue forcefully for increased impetus in terms of the generation of new technology and for its application to agriculture (6) both UK and worldwide, and both of them raised the challenges surrounding the need to increase production without eroding even further the natural capital that supports the delivery of non-costed ecosystem services. Table 2 presents the summary table of high-level policy actions from the Foresight report and highlights the need to integrate new knowledge into food systems that are both more sustainable and more productive and to ensure that policy decisions support these aims. Both as part of the Foresight process and subsequently; a number of reports and publications have addressed implementation within a UK and Northern European context (7,8,9,10). The UK has an excellent record of innovation within agriculture (4) and should serve as a paradigm for how temperate countries with high population densities can respond to the challenges facing the global food system. Issues of water availability will not restrict production 5 Government Office of Science (2011).The Future of Food and Farming. Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. Executive Summary 40pp. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-547-future-of-food-and-farming-summary.pdf 6 In this report, agriculture should be taken to cover any land-based activity that has as its major function the production of food either directly or indirectly for human consumption. 7 Pollock, C.J. (2010) Food For Thought: Options for sustainable increases in agricultural production. Foresight Regional Case Study R1. The UK in the context of North-west Europe: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/regional/11-590-r1-uk-in-north-west-europe-agricultural-production.pdf 8 The Conservative Party (2010). Science for a New Age of Agriculture. http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/09/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/taylor-review-agriculture.ashx 9 IAgrE (2012) Agricultural Engineering: a key discipline enabling agriculture to deliver global food security. http://www.iagre.org/sites/iagre.org/files/repository/IAgrEGlobal_Food_Security_WEB.pdf 10 Crute, I. (2012) Balancing the Environmental Consequences of Agriculture with the Need for Food Security. In: Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 34; Environmental Impacts of Modern Agriculture pp 129-149. R.E. Hester and R.M. Harrison eds. Royal Society of Chemistry
Table 2 Key priorities for action for policy makers (5) 1. Spread best practice. 2. Invest in new knowledge. 3. Make sustainable food production central in development. 4. Work on the assumption that there is little new land for agriculture. 5. Ensure long-term sustainability of fish stocks. 6. Promote sustainable intensification. 7. Include the environment in food system economics. 8. Reduce waste – both in high- and low-income countries. 9. Improve the evidence base upon which decisions are made and develop metrics to assess progress. 10. Anticipate major issues with water availability for food production. 11. Work to change consumption patterns. 12. Empower citizens.
to the extent predicted for other countries, and UK producers have already been active in seeking to utilise appropriate technologies to improve outputs without additional impacts upon the environment (7, 9). For the foreseeable future, the UK will form part of the global food chain, but increased global demand should offer additional opportunities to UK producers and reinforce the value of resilience of supply in terms of processors, retailers and consumers. There are, however, significant challenges ahead for UK producers. Current profit margins across the industry are variable (11) and flexibility for longer-term investment is restricted. Additionally the pattern of funding for R&D that can drive technological innovation has changed dramatically over the last two decades, with a reduced participation by the state in both applied research and knowledge transfer. Faced with these challenges, a group representing the interests of producers and growers was established in order to consider ways in which R&D could help UK producers to adapt to the new situation and to plan for a future where they could play an increasing role in promoting food security whilst sustaining a viable agricultural sector. Current investment patterns Figure 1 shows the distribution of current expenditure on agricultural R&D in the UK. The figures are based on Leaver (12) but updated to show the contribution of Technology Strategy Board and the QR contributions from university funding councils into relevant departments (principally veterinary science). There is a clear message from these data, together with a number of significant qualifications and omissions. The clear message is the dominant position of the Research Councils (principally BBSRC) and the relatively small contribution by the producer bodies (these include both statutory and voluntary levy organisations and a range of producer groups and agricultural charities). This suggests a possible imbalance between the funding for basic and strategic research and that for applied research and knowledge transfer. The qualifications and omissions within these figures temper that conclusion somewhat but do not invalidate it. Research Councils funding figures tend to overestimate the amount of research that has a specific objective relevant to a current industry need, because of their responsibility to maintain the health of the science base. A proportion of responsive mode grant funding will be relevant to agriculture and land use in that it supports the maintenance of expertise and capacity but is not necessarily directed towards current need. Likewise Funding Council support is directed towards maintaining HEI capacity for basic and strategic work across a broad front, but will also help to sustain the delivery of more targeted and applied studies funded externally.
11 Defra (2012) Total Income From Farming 2011. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-farmmanage-agriaccount-tiffnotice-120503.pdf 12 Leaver, D. (2010) Agricultural research needs and priorities: survey findings from the food and farming industry. 64th Oxford Farming Conference. www.ofc.co.uk
Figure 1. Distribution of the annual spend on UK agricultural and related
research by UK agencies. The total is ca £M386.
There are other sources of strategic funding not indicated in Figure 1 either because their main beneficiaries are not in the UK (DFID) or because the funding is competitive, variable and directed towards a changing range of objectives (EU Framework). UK institutions benefit significantly from these sources and the knowledge that accrues from such funding does, over time, benefit UK producers. Finally, the contribution to strategic and applied R&D funding by the agricultural supply industry is omitted, since it is difficult to calculate and is generally directed towards specific commercial ends. There is a limited amount of broader interchange between industry and academia that can benefit producers directly, but the current sums involved are not significant when set against the broad funding profile in Figure 1. Two further points need to be made about the data in Figure 1. The first is that recent Defra R&D funding has been prioritised towards the definition and delivery of policy, with benefit to the industry being a secondary objective. In the past, MAFF/Defra provided a key element of the research “pipeline” connecting basic, strategic and applied research through to delivery so in recent years TSB and Research Councils have had to develop other ways of targeting research more effectively to user needs. Although UK Government departments including Defra are now committed to supporting economic growth, continuing emphasis on the effective targeting of RC-funded research outputs will be important in ensuring that the recommendations from this report (Section 4) can be achieved. Finally, Scottish Government policy has explicitly targeted effective integration of R&D spend to benefit both government and producers (13). The vast majority of spend on agricultural
13 The Scottish Government (2012) Environment, Biology and Agriculture Research. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Research/About/EBAR
194
66
51
21
36 18 RESEARCH COUNCILS
DEFRA
SCOTLAND AND OTHER DGs
PRODUCER BODIES
UNIVERSITY FUNDING COUNCILS
TSB
R&D by UK devolved governments is in Scotland. National priorities are agreed and used to drive both policy and the development of R&D programmes covering strategic and applied research linked to specific end points that have both policy and industry relevance and to a structured programme of knowledge transfer and extension activity. Although most basic research carried out by Scottish institutions is still funded on a UK-wide basis, this approach does demonstrate an ability to integrate the different elements of the pipeline against a policy background that is clearly aware of the needs of the producer community. Current investment into applied producer-‐oriented research Each of the Producer Bodies that together make up the relevant segment of R&D spending shown in Figure 1 has its own research strategy. A listing of these bodies and reference to their current strategic plans is given in Appendix 2. The size of these bodies, and consequently the size of their R&D spend, varies considerably. A broad consideration of these documents suggests that three kinds of activity are funded widely (if not universally) across the group. The first and most obvious is targeted research, development and knowledge transfer to address current problems specifically relevant to that sector. Such activities will remain a significant element of the work of these bodies for the foreseeable future, and this report does not seek to modify the independence and freedom of action of the individual boards, groups and charities within this area. It is important, however, that those commissioning R&D in such areas are fully aware of the range of research capacity in the UK that could contribute to finding effective solutions The second activity is to help to support or extend the market for the products relevant to each group. As with explicitly sectoral R&D considered above, assessing the impact and value for money of funding in this area is the responsibility of the specific producer body. The final area of investment is in longer-term applied research that seeks either to maintain or to develop capacity to deliver existing, improved or novel products or to reduce the costs or impacts of production. Although usually aimed clearly at maintaining or improving profitability, this research tends to be generic, is more influenced by the broad flow of new knowledge, and shows certain common features across the range of commissioning organisations. Frequently the importance of this kind of R&D is acknowledged specifically within strategy documents, but there is often little acknowledgement of common approaches between groups or little evaluation of impact in terms of the uptake and development of new working methods across the sector. It is here that the authors of this report feel there is the maximum opportunity to develop added value and to influence the deployment of basic and strategic research.
Conclusions Given that current financial constraints make it unlikely that significant additional taxpayer resources will be directed towards agricultural R&D, the key questions that emerge from an analysis of Figure 1 are:
1. How can we improve the balance between support for basic, strategic and applied research within the UK?
2. Could producer funding be used more effectively if the links between the various funders were improved and if producer funding was targeted more effectively and cohesively?
3. Are the targets and timescales for delivery for applied funding consistent with the need to meet the mid-century challenges outlined above?
4. Are the knowledge transfer and extension mechanisms within the UK adequate to drive change across the sector?
5. Are there changes that will be needed to promote the delivery of R&D and thereby help the industry meet its obligations to protect the environment?
In an attempt to stimulate discussion on how to maximise the benefits of UK investment in agricultural research, in May 2010 the RASE convened a meeting for various organisations involved in agricultural R&D. The organisations represented at this meeting were: RASE, BBSRC, NFU, AHDB and its 6 Sectors (Combinable Crops, Potatoes, Horticulture, Pigs, Milk, Beef and Sheep) and RURAL. Each organisation explained how they worked which gave a better understanding to all present of the issues and challenges faced by agriculture and horticulture. One year later another meeting was convened with additional representatives from TSB, Biosciences KTN, BBRO and PGRO to discuss progress in addressing challenges raised from the previous year. Following this meeting the RASE, NFU and AHDB agreed to develop a set of R&D priorities for agriculture and horticulture which were developed and owned by the primary producers which could then be used to help direct the funders of research (BIS, BBSRC, DEFRA, SEERAD, AHDB and others) towards these agreed priorities. A steering group that included AIC was formed to take the project forward. TSB were asked and proved willing to fund and provide administrative support to this project and a consultant was engaged to write the report. From the outset the steering group were determined to build on the existing R&D strategies from each sector to develop an overarching coherent strategy for primary food production. This report is the outcome of these actions.
II. INFORMATION-‐GATHERING AND EVALUATION From the start, the Commissioning Group acknowledged the substantial and detailed body of existing published work, produced by individual sector groups, identifying their specific priorities for Research and Development . It was felt that there was little value in attempting to replicate this and that a review of the relevant published material would yield an appropriate level of understanding of key cross sector themes, opportunities and challenges List of reference documents used in this review can be found in Appendix 2 In order to validate that process and to ensure that any conclusions drawn accurately reflected the views and needs of primary producers; five stakeholder workshops, covering the Beef, Sheep and Grassland; Dairy; Pig; Combinable Crops and Sugar Beet and Potato and Field-scale Vegetable sectors were held during the summer of 2012. Parallel consultations were undertaken with representatives of those sectors of the primary industry that were not specifically covered by a workshop and that process is still ongoing The workshops typically comprised 15-20 invited delegates from across the UK; the objective being that at least 50% of the attendees should be primary producers reflecting a representative sample of the industry with the balance being made up of advisors (nutritionists, agronomists, vets, etc), sector group representatives and representatives of the upstream and downstream supply chain, to add some context and depth to the discussions. Each group was asked to identify the key management challenges and knowledge gaps that they felt required additional research and/or innovation to overcome. These were then captured, discussed and prioritized by the group members . A subsequent workshop comprising a broad range of senior industry stakeholders subsequently examined the emerging findings and identified the key cross sector challenges and researchable themes that would form the basis of the reports recommendations. These emerging findings and recommendations were then represented to all workshop invitees and other selected industry stakeholders for validation and comment prior to the completion of the report. The detailed outputs of the workshops can be found in Appendix 3
III. FINDINGS Based on the outputs from the workshops and discussions with other interested parties, the group has sought to identify a number of generic researchable issues. The contention is that, if these issues are addressed in a timely manner and with sufficient vigour, the outputs would support the long-term development of UK agriculture. Additionally, this would be done in a manner that would promote both the "sustainable intensification" approach envisaged by the Royal Society 3 and would protect and develop the capacity of the industry over a period where there will be many challenges associated with increased volatility in global markets both for inputs and products. Although the remit of the joint commissioning group related only to R&D relevant to food production, the researchable issues identified within the seven broad target areas will also be relevant to the development of alternative products from land. The eventual balance between food- and non-food offtake from land will depend on individual judgements conditioned by market needs and opportunities and the priorities detailed below are intended to preserve and extend capacity in all areas of production, not to restrict it. The generic issues are grouped into seven areas based upon the findings of the workshops. There is no attempt to prioritise these or to imply any level of hierarchy. The history of R&D in UK agriculture shows very clearly that producer benefit usually accrues from integrating scientific progress in a number of areas to enable improvements at the agricultural system level. Accordingly the findings detailed below should be viewed as a suite of proposals that would form the basis for future concerted actions by a range of funders.
1 -‐ Utilisation of modern technologies to improve the precision and efficiency of key agricultural management practices.
• Develop remote monitoring, control and application technologies to optimise input use efficiency, improve animal health and welfare, sustain product quality and safety, reduce the impact of machinery traffic on land and promote effective delivery of environmental goods and services
• Integrate and utilise the increasing volume of yield mapping and recording, soil, crop and animal data in order to develop better decision support tools for integrated farming systems.
• Improve platform flexibility, inter-‐operability and applicability to the UK environment in order to promote delivery of the above
Automating apple husbandry is an area that has attracted significant interest over recent years. However, before the orchard is even planted, automation requires a commitment to a growing system that lends itself to mechanisation. The orchard has to be planted at high density on a North/South axis so it will develop into a ‘fruiting wall’ – a two dimensional structure that will capture sunlight evenly on both sides. Pruning and thinning are areas that have been automated with a reasonable degree of success. Pruning is achieved using blades that take excessive growth off the side of the wall although some hand work is still required each winter. Thinning is done during blossom with rotating nylon cords that remove unwanted flowers. It is likely that some hand work will be required later in the season. Apple harvesting is the final challenge but a two dimensional wall is much easier for a robot to work with than a traditional tree where fruit will get hidden amongst the branches. Vision systems and handling systems will have to be developed and the challenges are significant. The robot will have to be able to identify which apples are ready to pick and then handle them without either bruising them or scratching them. However in the long term the rewards could be significant. Perhaps one day we will have robots that don’t just harvest apples they will colour and size grade apples as they do so.
Use of Controlled Traffic in arable crop production. The controlled traffic farming (CTF) concept is a logical extension of the existing “tramline” approach to agrochemical and nutrient application on many broad acre crops. It goes one step further however by utilising a single set of wheelings for all in-field machinery traffic. The outcome is a significant cut in the level of soil compaction, a reduction in fuel use, and a cut in machinery costs per hectare. To maximise the not inconsiderable financial benefits this approach offers however required continued investment in both research and coordination between machinery manufacturers, GPS technology providers, agronomists and farmers. Additional benefit will also be gained by fully analysing the symbiotic relationship between CTF; zero, minimal & strip tillage; and soil structure, organic matter content and permeability. Development of CTF should be seen in the wider context of a strategic approach to coordinating elements of precision agriculture. Linking these mechanical steps with those of sampling, mapping and site specific applications is already possible for nutrient applications, but has the potential to be expanded and linked to wider data capture applications.
Automated weed mapping. The emergence and evolution of precision farming techniques has the potential to revolutionise the way farmers and growers address perennial challenges of crop production such as the control of problem weeds in broadacre crops. Rising input costs, increasingly stringent environmental regulations and an ever diminishing arsenal of effective herbicides coupled with the build-up of herbicide resistance in target weeds are major challenge to arable crop production Automated weed mapping, allowing targeted herbicide application is one way of optimising weed control in this increasingly constrained environment. By combining state of the art sensing & imaging technology with weed recognition software and GPS positioning & application control systems, farmers will potentially be able to identify and monitor specific problem areas within fields and deploy precise, targeted control strategies that optimise product efficacy and minimise unnecessary chemical use. Whilst many of the constituent technologies already exist, albeit in relatively generic form, there is a pressing need to accelerate their development and integration, to improve the resolution and accuracy of the underpinning systems and software and broaden the range of target weeds that can be controlled in this way.
2 -‐ Apply modern genetic and breeding approaches to improve the quality, sustainability, resilience and profitability of crops and farm animals .
• Develop practical approaches for managing, curating, disseminating and using "omics" information and related large data sets in effective precision breeding of plants and animals.
• Use better understanding of plant architecture, development and
biochemistry to identify breeding targets for improved resource use efficiency and tolerance of biotic and abiotic stress in crops.
• Generate more effective improvement strategies for the ruminant sector that identify and manipulate relevant traits and their genetic drivers rather than emphasise specific breed improvement.
No-spray crops. There is an increasingly deep scientific understanding of the way that plants defend themselves against pests and pathogens; the UK is a recognised world leader in this research on the plant immune system. With targeted investment, the prospect exists to develop crop varieties with durable resistance to most of the pests and diseases which cause major losses to UK crops and that are either not readily controlled or where control is reliant on crop protection chemicals. The means to identify and utilise genes conferring resistance to viruses, bacteria and fungi as well as insects and nematodes is advancing rapidly through application of genomic technologies, particularly high throughput sequencing. Resistant varieties will be a necessary component of integrated pest and disease management and new biotechnologies will speed up the efficiency with which such varieties can be produced. I nbuilt genetic resistance to any disease or pest of any crop is now a goal within sight and is a recognised priority for innovation required by growers of horticultural and agricultural crops.
Speeding up sheep improvement with genomics. Improvement of livestock through selective breeding is effective in all livestock species and can make a very significant contribution to improved sustainability. The return on investment is influenced by a number of biological and market factors. Generation interval, the number of offspring per breeding animal and the use of commercial AI are all important. As are market factors such as the precision with which commercial customers can recognise the improvements delivered by superior breeding stock. The sheep industry is at a disadvantage for all these factors and the uptake of current breed improvement, though highly effective, lags behind all other livestock species. The use of genomic information is now speeding up the rate of breed improvement in dairy cattle, pigs and poultry and it has the potential to have a positive impact on the rate of improvement in sheep too, but the return on investment is limited by the biological factors above. A way to enable genomic selection in sheep has been developed in Australia with the use of ‘reference flocks’ that record a wide range of traits and apply genomic tools that can then be disseminated for application in breeders’ flocks. This approach is jointly funded by Government, industry and levy bodies. There is a clear opportunity to determine how such approaches can be developed to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the UK sheep flock.
3 -‐ Use systems-‐based approaches to understand better and manage interactions between soil, water and crop/animal processes
• Improve understanding of rhizosphere processes and the interactions between flows of carbon, water and nutrients under different management.
• Improve management of soil health under arable, horticultural, pastoral
and mixed systems, and link this to better water and waste management.
• Improve support tools for the optimal management of agricultural
systems that optimise potential productivity whilst mitigating the associated GHG emissions and other forms of diffuse pollution.
• Develop options to optimise the production and utilisation of protein
within UK farming systems.
Big data. Collecting, storing and mining deluges of data for commercial advantage is commonplace now in many industries; just think of the insurance industry or the value that retailers derive from the information captured by millions of “loyalty cards”. Farmers and growers already collect large amounts of data (weather, timing of cultivations, crop and livestock performance, soil analyses, prices, sprays applied and so on) and are using increasingly automated systems. This trend is set to continue apace as precision approaches to farming become pervasive. At the same time, the quantity and quality of data that can, and is, being collected remotely is increasing rapidly. However the industry is not yet set up to share its data and thereby derive maximum collective value from this untapped resource; there is an opportunity here to increase competitiveness that the UK can grasp. The technology for collecting, organising, storing and retrieving vast amounts of data is already available but it is the analysis and interpretation from which value is derived and this is where research is required. Data sets built over time from one farm deliver modest value to one business; but so much more value can be extracted by pooling, structuring and mining the data from thousands of farming businesses over many years. Already, benefits from data aggregation and analysis are evident in, for example, the genetic improvement of livestock. More is there to be achieved in all sectors of the agriculture industry by a structured approach to sourcing, storing and mining both land-based and remotely sensed data. Research is needed that will reveal, in large data sets, the statistical associations between variables that would previously be invisible. This analysis will lead to new previously unthought-of experiments designed to invalidate or confirm cause and effect. The outcome of this research is likely to be access on farm to firmly-founded site and time-specific information on which reliable management decisions can be based.
Protein Supply, the elephant in the room. Sustainably meeting the ever increasing global demand for animal based protein is perhaps the major challenge facing global agriculture over the next half century. Europe is currently less than 25% self sufficient in vegetable protein feeds, and increasing competition from developing economies combined with the potential of climate change to limit output growth in exporting countries could be described as the embodiment of the ‘Perfect Storm’. Optimising the production, recovery and utilisation of vegetable protein for animal feed is a key priority for agricultural research and innovation. This is a multifactorial challenge and the potential solutions are likely to be equally diverse. Improving the yield, quality and consistency of protein crops , be they forages, legumes or the co-products of crops, such as cereals and oilseeds, grown primarily for other purposes,(e.g. Bio-fuels) is key. Bringing together developments in Plant Breeding, Agronomy, Processing, Logistics, & Supply chain Integration in co-ordinated programmes of research & innovation has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of protein production and utilisation. Additionally, Industrial Biotechnology has a significant role to play in the augmentation of existing ‘low-grade’ protein sources through the production of synthetic amino acids. Finally technologies and innovative supply chain solutions that can safely mitigate the risks associated with the recycling of animal protein back into food production systems need to be developed to minimize waste and increase the overall usage efficiency of this most fundamental of resources.
4 -‐ Develop integrated approaches to the effective management of crop and animal diseases within farming systems.
• Develop strategies (including novel rotations) that are compatible with continuing restrictions on the availability of approved chemical controls for both plant and animal disease and for weeds.
• Continue to translate improved understanding of the genetic basis of
disease resistance into breeding targets for both plants and animals that offer durable and sustainable control options
• Promote the development of effective vaccines and control strategies
for endemic and emerging animal diseases (e.g. Johnes disease)
• Improve the linkage between welfare-‐oriented management approaches and the utilisation of precision breeding approaches to reduce the incidence of stress-related, non-‐pathogenic disorders in livestock.
Animal Health and Welfare Monitoring. Compromised animal health and welfare are two of the most significant causes of reduced feed conversion efficiency, and consequently increased GHG emissions when measured on a unit of output basis, in livestock systems. Stress, be it metabolic, pathogenic or environmental is often linked to immune suppression and the early detection and mitigation of stress factors and the physiological consequences of them is fundamental to sustainable, livestock production. Better understanding of animal behaviour and the interrelationships between the animal and its environment, be it housed or at pasture, along with ability to cost effectively monitor and analyse a broad range of physiological and environmental parameters in large numbers of animals is key. This will require the development and integration of a range of technologies that can independently monitor and analyse behavioural and physiological trends, identify risk factors and developing health and welfare issues on a real time basis and provide appropriate decision support to managers. Advances across a range of sensing technologies, e.g. motion sensing, metabolic marker detection and the emergence of ‘in-animal telemetry’, along with the ability to reliably capture, analyse and utilise the large volume of data that they generate, offers massive potential to optimise animal health & welfare, whilst driving sustainable improvements in productivity and environmental performance across all livestock sectors .
Improving Animal Health – Everybody wins. Endemic infectious diseases, such as respiratory or enteric diseases, are a major source of reduced animal welfare and, through their effect on biological performance, have serious impacts on commercial and environmental efficiency. They can also reduce food quality and safety. The diseases that are easily controlled by e.g. vaccines are already controlled that way. What remain are the more challenging diseases where the causal pathogen(s) are poorly understood and/or vaccine approaches are less viable. Modern high-throughput research tools, such as genomics and proteomics, open up new research opportunities to dissect the biology of these commercially important diseases. Furthermore, we now understand that selection for disease resistance/tolerance in livestock species (potentially enabled by genomic selection tools) can make an important contribution to better disease control (along with improved biosecurity, diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics). Research on discovery of better methods for control of endemic diseases has been neglected in the UK in recent decades and a new research impetus can deliver improved commercial and environmental sustainability as well as improving animal welfare and food quality and safety. Everybody wins.
5 -‐ Develop evidence-‐based approaches to value ecosystem service delivery by land users and incorporate these approaches into effective decision support systems at the enterprise or grouped enterprise level.
• Develop new models for integrated mixed-‐farming based around co location of specialist enterprises, optimising value from co-‐products and generating a "Circular Agricultural Economy"’
• Develop (in concert with other countries in the EU and elsewhere)
robust tools for measuring, valuing and monitoring ecosystem service outputs from a range of farming systems. Incorporate these into effective Decision Support tools
• Develop regional models to assist policy-‐makers to manage the relationship between changes in the patterns of land ownership, tenure and use and the delivery of essential ecosystem services.
Phosphorus recovery from waste streams (14). Concerns around the potential for soil phosphorus (P) balance, the sub-optimal use of it as an essential and increasingly expensive nutrient, the increased risk of pollution in both ground and surface water and the ultimate loss of the nutrient from the system have led to investigations into the viable recovering of P from manure waste streams. Various potential waste stream sources exist including the dairy sector, but also from human, pig and poultry (HPP) waste. The efficient recycling of P from HPP wastes will require a level of industrial treatment to enable it to be re-used in an economically viable manner away from the waste source. Research into the use of microwave pre-treatment of slurries has shown that it is possible to ‘unlock’ P from the organic fraction of the manure allowing it to be recovered in concentrated mineral form. A further advantage of this process is the residual organic fraction of the manure stream not only contains less potentially polluting P but has proven to be more rapidly broken down by anaerobic digestion. The development of bio-reactors to release mineral P in its organic form, using carbon as a bacterial feedstock rather than simply generating biogas as an output has the potential to improve both the efficiency and reduce the capital cost of this process significantly. Improving the efficiency and reducing the cost of such processes to the point that they can be commercially deployed will require considerable investment but they have the potential to yield significant long term economic, environmental and resource use-efficiency dividends. 14 Alterra (2010) ‘Phosphorus recovery from animal manure: technical opportunities and agro-economical perspectives’ http://content.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/AlterraRapport2158.pdf
6 -‐ Extend the training and professional development of researchers, practitioners and advisors to promote delivery of the targets above.
• Work with HEIs, RCUK and BIS to identify key research/technical skills that are in short supply or absent in the UK and develop approaches to improve the supply of graduates and postgraduates with relevant training both as researchers and as technical support to agribusiness in general.
• Work with HEIs and FEIs to develop CPD availability across agribusiness that will integrate with and support existing extension activities
7 -‐ Improve the use of social and economic science to promote development, uptake and use of sustainable, resilient and profitable agricultural practice that can deliver affordable, safe and high-‐quality products.
• Develop a series of "good practice" case studies for effective knowledge transfer and evaluate common features so that future research can be commissioned with specifications that maximise the likelihood of effective delivery.
• Investigate options to derive additional "best practice" benefits from
wider dissemination of the outputs of private sector research by the agricultural supply industry without compromising company profitability
• Identify the potential economic and social constraints on farmers that
might slow or prevent uptake of new knowledge, and how these constraints might alter over time.
Upskilling the industry. There is a shortage of young farm managers who have the requisite skills required for the increasingly technological and commercial challenges of modern agriculture . This is an industry wide issue as even the largest farming organisations lack the resources to develop and run effective management training schemes on their own. The vision is to have well trained professional management who can meet the current and future technical and business requirements. For example the challenge is to develop farm management training schemes involving groups of farming businesses which are accredited by recognised agricultural universities, colleges and other professional organisations. The trainee farm managers many of whom would already have a degree or diploma would gain experience in different businesses and sectors of agriculture, the farming businesses would benefit from a pool of enthusiastic young people who in time would gain wide practical experience, and the accrediting organisations would develop closer links with agricultural businesses.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The cost-effective and efficient management of applied agricultural research to deliver an increasingly wide range of benefits in a way that directly supports producers will not be straightforward. Retrospective analysis of where paradigm shifts have already occurred in agriculture show instances of both science push (e.g. the utilisation of dwarfing genes in cereals) and industry pull (e.g. the incorporation of silage rather than hay into ruminant rations) so any long-term vision for R&D management must be able to sustain both types of advance. A brief analysis of successful programmes from other countries (presented as a series of case studies in Appendix 4) indicates that the likelihood of success is enhanced if the following four criteria are met:
• Involvement of producers (in partnership with other funders) in defining and funding programmes, in evaluating bids and in overseeing the strategic management of the programme.
• The provision of high-quality independent scientific advice at an early stage in defining programme parameters, particularly in relation to duration and level of funding.
• The existence (or at least support for the development of) a clear route by which the results can be disseminated to a user community that is able and willing to act upon them.
• A commitment by all parties to ensure that widespread uptake is not constrained by lack of training, advice or the availability of skilled manpower.
In order to promote the programme of long-term research outlined in section 3 above, the joint commissioning group presents five specific recommendations for the attention of funders, UK government and research providers.
A. Levy bodies and other producer groups should consider ways in which they could facilitate the establishment of joint programmes based on the recommendations in Section 3 and to lever additional investment from RCs, Government Departments and TSB etc. Such programmes should be defined, funded and delivered in a manner that meets the criteria set out above. They should also be framed to maximise the options for research providers to obtain further funding from EU, other UK government departments or industry providing that this does not jeopardise delivery of the main aims of the programme. All the criteria defined above should be fully addressed at the planning and development stage prior to any producer agreement to fund.
B. RCs, government departments and, where appropriate, HEIs and
Research Institutes should seek broader representation from producers on relevant councils, boards and committees. Levy bodies and other producer groups should nominate representatives who will work to foster long-term, integrated approaches to the challenges outlined in the document rather than promote narrow sectoral interests.
C. Given the increasing policy emphasis on land-based issues covering
food production, alternative land use, climate change mitigation and the
protection of natural capital, there needs to be an integrated consideration of options to improve the provision of advice, training and skilled manpower at a UK level, both in terms of producers and of the skills within the R&D and consultancy base. Effective delivery of more sustainable production approaches that do not compromise profitability will only impact on meeting government targets if uptake by producers is much more widespread than has been achieved in the past. Although there are differences between the UK and devolved governments in some respects, this is a challenge that is UK wide. The Joint Commissioning Group welcomes the report on Agriculture currently being prepared by the Office of Life Sciences within BIS and will ensure that the findings in this report form part of the BIS evidence base. Levy Bodies have considerable experience both in the dissemination of new knowledge and in the measurement of effectiveness of uptake which will be very relevant to the Department's deliberations.
D. The policy and strategy implications associated with delivery of the
research recommendations within this report should be considered holistically by both government and the funders of basic and strategic research. In governmental terms, there is a need to ensure consistency of policy and approach between different government departments with an interest in land and water use, food and energy production and the protection of natural capital. Once again, the Group welcomes the BIS report and urges them to consider the value of clarity and consistency in this area. Additionally, a coherent UK viewpoint will assist in deliberations at an EU level over the evolution of a regulatory regime that currently lacks both focus and consistency.
E. In terms of the funders of research, thought needs to be given to how
future strategic decisions over blue skies and responsive mode funding can be managed to protect the UK capacity for scientific excellence whilst addressing skills shortages in key areas such as soil science. The Group acknowledges the value of competitive responsive mode funding to maintain excellence in existing areas of strength. It is less convinced that effective mechanisms exist to grow excellence in areas of strategic need rather than new science opportunity. Addressing this challenge will require dialogue between RC's, relevant components of the university sector and other funders.
V. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT AND UPTAKE OF INNOVATION: The findings and recommendations of this report are predicated upon two main principles. Firstly that the forecasts for world food demand and other products from land use are broadly in line with those discussed in the Foresight review 4 and secondly that there is general agreement over the need for the UK agricultural sector to adapt to these changing circumstances. These principles were considered in detail at the last Joint Commissioning Group workshop on cross-sectoral issues. The positive drivers summarised below flow from these principles and would be expected to have beneficial consequences for UK producers:
• Rising global demand for food. • Increasing global prosperity drives higher consumption of meat and
dairy products. • Increasing political significance in Europe given to issues of food
security. • Potential beneficial effects of climate change on some elements of UK
production. • Increasing political pressure to improve efficiency and reduce
waste/losses. • Better opportunities to integrate both R&D and production systems
across land use embracing food, energy, and bioproducts will generate new business opportunities.
However, the workshop also identified a number of potential drivers that could impact negatively, at least in the short- to medium-term, on the effective development of the industry and consequently on the implementation of the priorities and recommendations within the report. These are summarised below and cover concerns about the ability of producers to adapt and invest whilst under short-term financial pressure, the over-rigid regulatory regime for European producers and the potential sensitivity of the industry to "sudden shocks" such as emerging diseases and input price fluctuations:
• Altered patterns of land tenure and increased contract farming drive
"short-termism". • Insufficient profit for producers prevents or reduces long-term
investment. • Reduced meat consumption in developed countries leads to loss of
markets in the short-term. • Inconsistencies in and costs of EU regulatory system prevent uptake
of appropriate technologies and hastens loss of existing technologies. • Pressures to reduce emissions and diffuse pollution lead to export of
production. Need to recognise the "irreducible minimum agricultural carbon footprint".
• Emerging animal diseases not managed effectively due to insufficient investment in new products and vaccines.
The workshop also identified a number of operational challenges that could impinge on delivery of the report's recommendations. In the main, these have been addressed in detail within the body of the report, with the exception of the final comment relating to consumer confidence:
• Ensuring innovation reaches further down the producer profile than in
the past in the absence of a UK-wide extension system. • Ensuring buy-in from producers for a shift in emphasis towards the
longer-term. • Maintaining R&D investment at a level appropriate for the UK's largest
business sector. • Improving engagement between key stakeholders in the
establishment of longer-term R&D priorities. • Improving integration of member state and EU-funded R&D to
maximise value and improve innovation. • Re-establishing consumer trust and loyalty to UK producers.
The need to re-establish consumer trust and loyalty at the producer level, whilst important, lies outside the particular remit of this report. However, there is an increasing body of social and economic research relating to the marketing and supply of agricultural produce at a range of scales, and there may be value in a broad analysis of the outcomes of this research.
VI. NEXT STEPS In order to implement the findings and recommendations of this report, the actions listed below will be required. These are all matters of some urgency, given the juxtaposition of the BIS review, and some actions are required prior to finalisation of this report.
1. Representatives of the producer funding organisations should consider Recommendation A and seek agreement on the modalities for consolidated funding of longer-term generic research.
2. Following this, discussions should take place with other relevant funders (RCs, Government Departments, TSB etc) to agree a priority order and timelines for addressing the research priorities and to establish procedures to specify, commission, monitor and disseminate outputs.
3. Simultaneously with 1, representatives of the producer funding organisations should contact BBSRC, NERC and other relevant organisations with proposals to increase producer representation
4. Currently the BIS study on agri-food technology offers an excellent opportunity for Producers to raise issues relating to KT and re-establishing the relevant skills and expertise base within the UK. As a matter of urgency, AHDB should submit relevant findings from this report and other, more detailed comments as part of the call for evidence.
5. In terms of promoting a consistent approach within government to sustaining production agriculture as an essential foundation for the UK food and drink industry, the Joint Commissioning Group should work with other interested parties (NFU, Agri-supply Industry etc) to develop a common position. Ideally this too should form part of the evidence base submitted to the BIS review.
6. Finally, there will need to be contact with BBSRC (facilitated perhaps via BBSRC Council) to consider the implications of recommendation E. Any significant changes in the way in which responsive mode funding is delivered will also have to be debated by the relevant research providers and it is probably not realistic to expect swift progress in this area. In consequence, the Group should also identify any priority areas where skills shortages are currently constraining progress and submit them as part of their evidence to BIS.
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS This report has attempted to delineate the challenges facing producers in adapting to the challenges of "Sustainable Intensification" (3). It has recommended that producer organisations need to change the way in which they engage with and partner other research funders in order to maximise the likelihood that cutting-edge science (the development of which is one of the strengths of the UK science base) can be deployed effectively in support of a significant industrial sector. Re-establishing continuity will also generate other opportunities for researchers to gain impact through deploying new approaches and technologies outside the UK and through enhanced ability to develop implement and monitor policies that are in tune with current views about multifunctional land use. The role of government in expediting such change and helping to ensure effective delivery is essential but above all it requires a level of acceptance from within the producer base that significant changes are needed as a matter of some urgency. The UK has an opportunity to develop as a paradigm for how small developed countries with high population densities can play a significant part in addressing the challenges to the global food system, and this report is intended to promote this long-term objective. C.J. Pollock. November 2012
VIII. APPENDICES Appendix 1. Membership and affiliation of the Joint Commissioning Group.
Ian Crute is Chief Scientist of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board which he joined from Rothamsted Research in 1999 after 10 years as institute Director. This followed 25 years in Horticulture Research International as a research leader in plant pathology, a Head of Department and Director at Wellesbourne. Ian’s scientific contributions have been recognised by several awards and are recorded in over 160 publications. He was a Member of the Lead Expert Group for the “Global Future of Food and Farming” Foresight project and currently serves on several Boards and Committees connected with science and innovation within the UK agri-food sector.
Andrea Graham joined the National Farmers’ Union as their Countryside Adviser at their Headquarters in Stoneleigh in 2007 following 18 years in agricultural scientific research During this period, she was involved in developing national policy and advice to the NFU on many key countryside issues including agri-environment schemes, wildlife and biodiversity, landscape, forestry and woodland and the design and implementation of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment. For the last year, she has been the NFU’s Acting Chief Science & Regulatory Affairs Adviser. She is currently Chief Land Management taking a policy lead on knowledge exchange and the application of science and innovation on farm, sustainable intensification and the Green Food Project.
Paul Rooke is Head of Policy, External Affairs for the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC). He is also the Sector Head for the AIC Crop Marketing and Seed Sectors as well as managing the Confederation’s Contract and Arbitration services. He represents AIC on a range of government and stakeholder bodies in both the UK and EU, is a member of the Red Tractor Crops Board, the industry body SCIMAC and a founder of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture. He was also a member of the FSA’s Steering Group on the proposed national GM Dialogue. He joined AIC’s predecessor organisation , UKASTA, in 1992, having completed a BSc (Hons) degree in Agriculture at Harper Adams. Paul also has a postgraduate qualification in law from Westminster University.
David Gardner joined the Royal Agricultural Society of England as its Chief Executive in April 2012. His role is to take the Society back to its roots based upon ‘Practice with Science’. He is currently developing a technology transfer initiative based around the emerging technologies that will shape agriculture over the coming decades. Prior to joining the RASE David enjoyed a long career with The Co-operative Farms who he joined as a graduate after studying at Seale Hayne. During his time with The Co-operative farms David held a number of senior positions including Head of Fruit Operations and Manager of Stoughton Estate in Leicestershire. He has considerable experience in the combinable, dairy and fruit sectors. In 2010 David completed a Nuffield Arden scholarship, investigating 'The Appliance of New Science and Frontier Technologies to transform UK Agriculture'
Jim Godfrey is an arable and pig farmer from Lincolnshire. Jim is a non executive director of the Rural Payments Agency, National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) and Lincolnshire Rural Support Network, chairman of the Technology Strategy Board Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform, a member of: BBSRC Council, The Commercial Farmers Group, Nuffield Farming Scholarship Selection Panel, Centre for Excellence in UK Farming, International Rice Research Institute. Jim is a former chairman of: The Potato Marketing Board, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Sentry Farming Group plc, the International Potato Centre and the Alliance of the 15 Research Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
David Alvis is a Lead Technologist with the Technology Strategy Board with co-responsibility for the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform. He represents the TSB on the GO-Science Food Research Partnership and is a member of the FRP Research Translation sub-group and the Dairy Science Forum. David has a BSc in Agriculture from Wye College, University of London and an MBA from Cranfield School of Management. He is also a Nuffield Scholar . He has over 20 years management experience in the industry ranging from farm management to commercial and general management roles in the fresh produce sector, with Greenvale AP and the agricultural supply sector with the Roullier group. David worked for the TSB as a consultant from February 2010 and from May 2012 joined the organisation as Lead technologist on a part-time basis, dividing his time between his TSB role and his own business, Winstone Agribusiness Consulting Ltd.
Calum Murray is a lead technologist with the Technology Strategy Board with co-responsibility for the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform. He represents the TSB on the Programme Coordination Group of BBSRC’s Global Food Security initiative and the International sub-group of the Food Research Partnership and a member of the LEAF Advisory Board. Calum graduated from Aberdeen University with an honours degree in agriculture in 1982. His career started with ADAS in Suffolk, moved into farm business consultancy before joining SAC back in Scotland in 1990. In 1995 he was appointed by Bank of Scotland as national agricultural specialist. In 2006 he was appointed Regional Director for NFU Mutual Finance, a Bank of Scotland JV. Following the merger of HBoS and Lloyds, Calum joined the Technology Strategy Board in Feb 2010.
Chris Pollock (Report Editor) was Director of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in Aberystwyth from 1993-2007. For many years, Chris has been involved nationally in agriculture and land use. He chaired the Scientific Steering Committee for the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, the Defra Research Priorities Group for Sustainable Farming and Food and the Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Science panel for the 2008 RAE He is currently chair of the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment.
Appendix 2. Reports and Strategy Documents used in the evaluation phase of this study to assess the breadth and coverage of current applied R&D in the Land Use Sector Dairy Co
• http://www.dairyco.org.uk/farming-info-centre/research-development.aspx • http://www.dairyco.org.uk/library/research-development/environment/dairy-
roadmap.aspx • http://www.dairyco.org.uk/library/corporate/business-plans/business-plan-
2010-2013.aspx English Beef & Lamb Executive (EBLEX)
• http://www.eblex.org.uk/research/index.aspx • http://www.eblex.org.uk/publications/research.aspx • http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_changeintheair
theenglishbeefandsheepproductionroadmap.pdf (Road Map 1) • http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_testingthewater
061210.pdf (Road Map 2) • http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_down_to_earth
300112.pdf (Road Map 3) British Pig Executive (BPEX)
• http://www.bpex.org.uk/R-and-D/default.aspx • http://www.bpex.org.uk/environment-hub/climate-
change/PigIndustryRoadmap.aspx - Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA)
• http://www.hgca.com/content.output/5086/5086/Funding%20and%20Awards/Funding%20and%20Awards/Research%20and%20knowledge%20transfer%20strategy.mspx
Potato Council (PCL)
• http://www.potato.org.uk/node/214 - Horticultural Development Company HDC
• Overarching strategy - http://www.hdc.org.uk/over-arching-strategy - • Bulbs and Outdoor Flowers http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/BOF_RandD.asp • Field vegetables http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/FV_RandD.asp • Hardy Nursery Stock http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/HNS_RandD.asp • Protected edible crops http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/PE_RandD.asp • Soft fruit http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/SF_RandD.asp • Tree fruit http://www.hdc.org.uk/sectors/TF_RandD.asp
Campden BRI publication -
• “Scientific and technical needs of the food and drink industry – 2012-14” http://www.campden.co.uk/research/strategy.pdf
House of Lords -
• European Union Sub-Committee D “Innovation in EU Agriculture” – published July 2011 (19th Report of Session 2010-12)
HM Government –
• The Natural Choice – securing the value of nature. UK National Ecosystem Assessment http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/
Commercial Farmers Group (CFG) –
• Priorities for Agricultural and Horticultural R&D (2009) Environmental Sustainability KTN –
• “Environmentally Sustainable Agri-Food Production” (2012) Defra Green Food Project Report –
• http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/07/10/pb13794-green-food-project/ Hybu Cig Cymru (HCC) Welsh Meat Roadmap -
http://hccmpw.org.uk/medialibrary/publications/HCC%20Sustainable%20Red%20Meat%20Roadmap%20English%20LR_1.pdf
Institute of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE) -
http://www.iagre.org/sites/iagre.org/files/repository/IAgrEGlobal_Food_Security_WEB.pdf
Society for General Microbiology-
http://www.sgm.ac.uk/PA_Forms/FoodPS_Web.pdf British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO)
http://www.bbro.co.uk/science
Appendix 3 Collated Workshop Outputs
****** Additives to improve FCE / Gut Health ********Vaccine development (Blue tonge, TB, Schmallenburg etc)
****** Livestock benefits on Arable Farms ******** Breeding for Disease Resistance *******Improved EID technology & portable systems of livestock record keeping
***** Improving effectiveness of AI ****** Biosecurity & Disease eradication ***Balancing Production and environment (Ecosystem services)
******* Rumen Metagenomics *****(Automated) Recordingof Phenotype information
*****Grass as a crop -‐ Selection, Soil & Nutrient management, utilisation
****** Lameness, Locomotion & Longevity *** Optimising Land use **** Eating Quality **Databases that communicate with each other /Industry wide IT system integration
****Use of co-‐products & Human Food chain bio-‐recycling
***Identification of parasites pre clinical symptoms
***Matching appropriate animal breeds to farming system
**** Grass & Legumes to replace Soya * Electronic carcase classification
*** Culling for the right reasons **Trace elements & Animal immune system response
* Alernative forage crops to grass ***GM Hi-‐Sugar,N-‐Fixation, Drought tolerance
Market information & Risk management tools
**Understanding Key business drivers & Management trade-‐offs
* Volatile Monitoring of AH What do animals contribute to soil ** Growth Rate & Feed efficiencyTools for pre slaughter assessment of animals
**Manure & Nutrient management for Grass
* Novel diseasesEnvironmental schemes vs Liver fluke control -‐ tensions
** Genetic reduction of Enteric MethaneMeasuring & Mapping grass growth
** Optimum slaughter age * Worm / Fluke Diagnosis & ControlCatchment management of contaminants -‐ Prediction models
** Neo-‐natal survival & Maternal InstinctTools to optimise Economic & environmental decision making
*Manipulation of nutrition to improve consumer health
External Parasite Control Zero grazing systems ** identification of desirable traits in traditional breeds -‐ Genomic Markers
* Fallen Stock managementDisease resistance in Animal populations
Is stratification structure appropriate for 2030
** Functional trait markers
Feeding -‐ nutrient requirements for growing animals
Managing antimicrobial resistance Systems for a volatile climate ** Easy care' breeds / composites
Soil Sampling inc Trace elements for livestock species
Rumen Function Indoor vs Outdoor lambing *Targeted breeding programmes for UK systems & Markets
N-‐Sensors & CTF for Grassland Midge control to control diseases * Balanced BreedingMeasuring Grass quality & Performance / Growth
Breeding for functional traits rather than breed types -‐ Composites/Hybrids
Hormone Implants & ionophores Lean Meat Production EfficiencyAlternative Protein Sources EBVs
Carcase UniformityMastitis Resistance
Heritability of Reproductive performance
Sexed Semen -‐ Improved performanceCloning -‐ Where will it make a difference?Genetic modification of animals to produce medicinal / Pharmaceutical products
Beef, Sheep & Grassland Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for researchHusbandry & Nutrition GeneticsHealth & Welfare Farming Systems Engineering & IT
* Potatoes * Salad Brassicas & Field vegetables * Root Vegetables
***************
Availability of Crop Protection Products *********Rotational Soil & Nutrient management
****** Availability of Marker Assisted breeding ***** Matching Ecology with production ***Post harvest detectio of internal defects
***** Crop Maturity Control (Brassicas) **Rotational solutions to persistent issues
***** Introducing N fixation in other crops ***Managing effective biodiversity / beneficials
*** Robotics
**** Weed Control ** Alternative weed control barriers **** Potato Blight *** Sources of major nutrients ***Advanced Storage & Grading systems
**** Bruising * New crops for the Uk **** Drought resistance ** Energy use / climate change **IT diagnse problems -‐ remote sensing
*** Nutrients * Crops to aid weed/pest control **** Storage -‐ Sprout control * Efficient use of water ** Mechanical harvesting of Veg*** New Diseases / Invasive Species * Urban Farming *** Yield * Meeting consumer requirements * Precision Weeders*** Light to propagate veg plants Legacy left by cereal farmer *** Pest & Disease resistance / tolerance * Low GI potatoes * Reducin management hours -‐ MIS
*** Spear Rot in Brassicas Benefits of mixed farming systems ** Nutritional quality (diet / health) * Introducing predators into the field * Better automated vision grading
** Virus Prevention Risks to mixed farming **Improvements to enable mechanical harvesting
* Non water control of Common scab * Educating Next generation
** Post Emergence Herbicides Value of compost etc ** Shelf Life * Targeting spray applications * Soil Nutrient / N analysis
** Soil Management Anaerobic digestion **Gene identification in a broad range of plants
* Waste utilisation for energyIndicator plants to understand growth
* Aphid Control Vertical Farming * Soil Biology * Landscape level management of water Storage v Transport
* Water / Irrigation Management Companion/ Perma cropping *Resilience over range of environmental conditions
Pest Horizon scanning]Plants & Growing systems to make Robots work
*Alternative (non-‐peat) substrates for transplants
Short term issues rented land *adaptation to higher temps (climate change)
Social acceptability of new science CTF for Vegetable Production
* Crop Desication Green manures * Smart plants Phosphate utilisation Sensors for selective harvesting
Crop UniformityWhat initiates What in plants (including weeds)
Energy Use for Protected productionAutomated Phenotypic data collection
Crop Establishment Resistance to Club RootRegulatory pressure for pollution control
Contaminant removal / reduction
Potato Nematode Control Nutrient Stress resistance Keeping inputs / run-‐off in the field Atmosphere control by cropsN-‐ optimisation Flavour Novel uses of by-‐products Unknown UnknownsConstraints of RB209 Public acceptability of new varieties Precision landscape planting ID of pathogens (Food poisoning)
Snails in PeasQuicker integration of traits into commercial varieties
Headland management for Biodiversity
Bio-‐fungicides Bolting controlEfficacy of organic weed control in different conditions
Skin Blemishes Improving N fixation in legumesSugar Leveles Potato Storage Oxidisation pst harvest
Potato Blight Crop programming in a changing climate
Weed control -‐ non chemicalSeason ExtensionDowny mildewFusariumXanthomonas in Brassicas / Leeks
Potatoes & Field Scale Vegetable Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for research
Crop Husbandry Genetics Environment & SocialFarming Systems Engineering & IT
*******Early Embryonic Death Genetic,
Nutritional, Health Status**** Lameness / Pain detection ****
Genotype links to treatment regime -‐ Stratified management
*****Neo Natal & Pre ruminant management
******Immune system Function / Suppression
***** Cow Stress -‐ Measurement *New DD treatments formalin / Copper Sulphate
*** In line detection automated **** Liver Damage & Fatty Liver ****** Johnes
****Submission rate vs Conception rate
(Declining CR-‐ Why?)KE Adoption of current best practice *** multi-‐modal & interptetation *** Calf & Heifer rearing ***** Better diagnostics
** Once a day milkingDigital dermatitis -‐ Pathology, Resistance & Vaccination
** Alternatives to Antibiotic ** FCE *** Anti microbial resistance
** Endemic & Sub clinical disease Why do some cows not get lame **diagnostics -‐ real time & stratified therapy
** RumenModifiers **Social & behavioural requirement of cows -‐ modelling building design
* Physiological drivers of (in)fertility Health economics **Biological control -‐ Cow , teat, environment
** Synthetic Amino Acids * Persistent & multiple vaccines
*Nutritional drivers of fertility &
Negative Energy balanceCow behaviour *
cow comfort & environmental hygiene
*Supplementing Grazing and balancing forage variability
Scours
Herd synchronisation for UK Floor surface v lameness * Self curing * Optimising Feed utilisation Building designTransition Management &
Management Grouping Early life development * Sub species strian Colostrum Quality Vaccine Technologies
Measurement of Data Plastics to treat lameness Vaccination (Staph Aureus) Colostrum replacers Animal immunity / measurement
Involuntary Cull ratesGenetics & Nutritional links -‐ Digital cushion
Anti inflamatories vs Antibiotics Weanimg strategies Social environment & Stress
Extended lactation & Calving interval -‐ LDY vs Lact yield
Maintaining sole thickness post calving
secondary costs of Mastitis Rumen Development
Aids to Heat Detection & Submission rate
Get Vets Farmers & Foot trimmers to work closer re lameness management
Measuring youngstock development
Breed vs Hybrid Self feed systems for large herdsLate lactation vs transition
managementFeeding different breeds
Building design & Cow environment/comfort
Innovative Ways of delivering nutrients to cows
Maternal recognition of pregnancy Enzymes for better Feed utilisationSocial Environmnert & stress Sub Acute Rumen Acidosis
Minerals Cu. Mo, Se, I
Dairy Sector Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for research
Current HusbandryFertility Lameness Mastitis Feeds & Feeding & YS Rearing Health & Welfare
**** Skills requirements for 2030 *********Phenotypes remote / automated sensing
***** Home grown protein *********Cow restlessness = Stress Remote sensors
**** Dewatering waste streams
***Matching systems to Geography/regions
*** Resistance to disease *** Soil Health **** in line progesterone testingDefinition and measurement of welfare
** Data & Models for farming systems *** IVF & Cloning **Maximising Dry Matter production / Ha
*** Prediction of calving date & time UK & Young people into farming
** Food Security & Ruminants *** Embryonic loss * Understanding Soil Organic Matter *** Early lameness detection technologyChanging perception re commercial scale livestock systems
* Organic Systems ** Feed Intake & FCE ** Palatbility & Intake characteristics * Real time sensing of Soil properties Methane emissions
understanding Cow behaviour -‐ designing buildings and dairy systems
** Collecting data, Data islands sharing * persistent legumes * pH bolus Better use of wastes
|Social research -‐ How to get messages to Farmers
** Gentics for heat expression Phosphate management *Decision support systems for slurry management
Retaining nutrients that leach
Simple systems ** novel milk Trace element * Non invasive cow side tests Reducing manure odoursValuing Ecosystem services * Genotypes & drug response Making Forage in poor conditions * Heat detection Carbon sequestration by grasson Farm systems for measuring Eco-‐system service
*Selection for specific production systems
Selection of Forage varieties * In line mastitis Short/long term carbon cycles
Diversity of systems * Consistent values of reliabilities Measuring DMI at grass Decision Support tools Sand recycling systems
Building design * Closed loop datat collection & use Better forage analysisGood collection & analysis of historical Data re mastitis
Environmental Management systes to make planning less subjective
Labour efficiency * Raised Genetic Merit for feertility Breeding for RUE Driverless feeder wagon Water as a resourceProcess flow Digital dermatitis index Forages for extreme climate Resource plannimng toolHeat stress / shade Cow families & Mastitis C4 genes in grass Carbon footprintiong toolsenergy efficiency GM resistance to Mastitis N Fixing grass Reducing fossil fuel use
Dirty water cleaning systems Sexed Semen Legiume persistanceUnderastanding N fixation by legumes
Water quality assessments Digital cushion Optimisation and storage of manure nutrients
Moisture free environment Making Bull calves more profitable Biogas from sl;urry
Welfare assessment of housing Heterosis -‐ benefitsBeef from dairy herd -‐ nop shooting bull calves
Building design & fertilityManaging genetic resources / diversity
movement of bacteria / gentic info from farm to other environments
Genetics for forage utilisation Biosecurity at scale
On farm genomics Adaptation to climate change
meta genomics
Dairy Sector Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for research
Genetics Environment & Social Farming Systems Engineering & ITForage production
10(29)Maximising exploitation of current genetics
12 (37) Managing Health & Disease 15 (24)Training & investment in staff at individual farm and industry level
1 (9)Novel breeding technologies (GM, Genomics)
2(5) Improving efficiency measurement
5(14) Feed efficiency 7(13) Balancing welfare with Productivity 1(5)Improving outdoor production systems
*** Improving FCR * Measuring DLWG & FCR in field
****** Improving FCR ******* Managing Animal health *******Investment in improving Building Stock / quality
*** Taste, flavour & texture *Auto Monitoring & Control of feeding
****** Reducing pre weaning mortality ***** Tail Biting / Aggression in finishing pigs *****Building design for increased performance & welfare
*** Sow fertility & Fecundity * Precision environments
******Increasing producitvity per sow (weaned pigs / sow / yr)
*** Endemic disease control **Environmental Management / constraints
** Disease resistance *Automated monitoring of piglet prodn to reduce mortality
** Utilisation of alternative feeds *** Welfare constraints & Pig behaviour ** Planning regulation * Alternative Protein supplies *** Freedom Farrowing systems
**Emerging disease Identification and management
* Salmonella* Sow Aggression* Sow Longevity* Swine dysentery* Satiety in gestating sows** PRD
Pig Sector Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for research
Husbandry & Nutrition GeneticsHealth & Welfare Farming Systems Engineering & IT
**********Closing the Yield Gap -‐ Understanding Why
***** Improved economics of pulses ********* N-‐ fixing cereals ******Overiding need for science / evidence base regulation
*******Variable rate fert & Manure application
***** Improved Blackgrass control **** Direct drilling in a mariime climate **** GM traits for consumer benefits ****** Reducing N-‐Use ****In crop testing of nitrogen/protein content
****Micro -‐ nutrients & Trace element nutrition
****Benchmarking to integrate technical decisions wth economics & sustainability
*** Genetic disease resistance *****Need for tramsparent & independent consistent research messaging
*** Smart' GPS pesticide application
***Soil Borne diseases and rotational effects (Take All & Club root)
***Science Skill Base & Career retention
***Pext repellent traits (Slugs, Pigeons,aphids etc)
**** Loss of Chemistry ** Soil Nutrient mapping
*** Mycotoxin management ***New (to UK) crops for climate change adaptation
**Drought tolerance & Abiotic stress resistance
****Efficacy of sterile strips to prevent weed ingress
**Remote sensing (Pests, disease , nutrient)
**Disease Managemen and implication on development of resistance
** Resource Use efficiency ** Pretein genetics *** Soil Biology & Soil Structure ** Low/zero tillage systems
Integrated Weed control programmes ** Better info on rotations ** Improved rooting structure ***Reducing water requirement -‐ Soil moisture holding capacitu
*Sensors for Farmer measurement of crop stands
Inefficiency of nutrient use in OSR (Root structure)
** New Break Crops for UK ** Maximising energy production (Maize) *** Landscape scale planning * Monitoring crop quality in store
** Regional impacts ** Slug resistance ***Sustainable intensification of environmental management
* Integrated decision analysis (IT)
* Nutrient cycling * Improved multi gene disease resistance *** Standardised Carbon Footprinting Guidance systems
*Better integration of Livestock & Arable systems
* Natural Standing power (no pgrs) **Extreme weather impacts (Drought & Lodging)
Controlled Traffic Farming
* Short growing season crops *Increaseds traw yields -‐ for livestock sector
* Plant microbe interactions Nanaotechnology
*Impact of Carbon Footprint on establishment/management decision making
* Post emergence weed control * Control of Eutrophic algal blooms Compatability of IT systems
* Basic crop ecology & interactions *Phenotypi expression under field conditions
* Impact of climate change Variable seed rates
Farm Platform for Arable Farming Nutritional value of crops *Better evaluation of Stewardship options on achieving desired outcomes (ELS/HLS)
Mobile soil type mapping
Land Sparing vs Land Sharing Take-‐all & Second wheat syndrome *Use of selective herbicides in hedge bottoms
Decision support systems
Cover & companion crops Improved milling qualities *Better understanding of trade-‐offs between production & Environment
Fully automatic drying & Storage systems
Improved use of Water Frost resistance KE/KT & Barriers to uptake Inter row band sprayingEcology of Pests & Disease and most effective points in rotation to control them
Increased Folic Acid content (cereals)Over reliance on single indicators for evironment (Farmland bird index)
Whole farm predictive modelling
Dual purpose Food & Fuel cropsUnderstanding genetics of plant physiology / biochemistry
Better understanding of causes of environmental interactions / issues
Sensor development
GENOMIC SELECTION & MOLECULAR MARKERS
Implication of cultivations / establishment methds on diffuse pollution and soil stability
Automation of cultivation depth / intensity to produce desired seedbed
GM research in Wheat pulses & Soya for increased yields and RUE
Decrease reliance on non-‐renewable GHG emitting resources
Precision application of dusty materials
Understanding of diffuse water pollution (protection of AI's)
Precision application/ CTF for environmental benefits
Combinable Crop Sector Workshop -‐ Key Challenges & Priorities for ResearchCrop Husbandry Genetics Environment & SocialFarming Systems Engineering & IT
Summary of Outputs from Cross Sector R&D Roadmapping Workshop 30th July 2012 - Stoneleigh In attendance: David Alvis , Calum Murray (TSB), Ian Crute (AHDB), Andrea Graham (NFU), Jim Godfrey, Chris Pollock, David Gardner (RASE-afternoon session) Prof Charles Godfray – Oxford University / Foresight, Tina Barsby – NIAB, Mike Bushell –Syngenta, Dave Hughes – Syngenta, Chris Tapsell – KWS / BSPB, Richard Heathcote – Heineken, Ian Matts – YARA ,Helen Browning – Soil Association, Tom MacMillan – Soil Association, Robert Merrall – IAgrE, Prof Dick Godwin – Cranfield Uni / HAUC, Salvador Potter – PGRO, Angela Booth – ABAgri, Peter Mills – HAUC / HTF, Duncan Sinclair – Waitrose Summary of responses to key questions Q1. PESTLE Analysis : What are the key drivers that will have a significant impact on Food Production and the Environment in the UK over the next 20 years? Political:
• Globalisation of Agri-Food industry – Loss of UK control
• Climate Change Policy • CAP reform • Food labeling • Food Prices & Volatility (Resilience & Efficiency) • Public Sector Investment • Future Role of Global Commodity Trading - WTO • Land Use trade-offs • Potential for Global Unrest • Mass Migration • Health & Food safety Policy • G8 Agenda • Existing R&D Structures • EU Innovation Union (Horizon 2020)
Economic:
• Rising Food prices • Changing Diet- Demand for Animal Protein • Global Trade in commodities / WTO • Supply Chain Resilience (UK & Global) • Oil Price • Analysis / Valuing diverse outputs from land • Skills & Education • Reduction in Public Sector Spending • Duplication of RD Spend within Europe • Horizon 2020 • Increased Competition in global markets • Land ownership
Social:
• CAP reform • Land use trade-offs • Consumer expectations (Quality/Quantity) • Currency Volatility & Political/Social instability • Long term Food price inflation • Food Security – UK & Global • Health – Food Safety & Diet • Population Migration • Skills & Education • Ageing population • Image & Reputation of Food Industry • Awareness & Acceptability of New Technologies
(GMO, cloning etc) • ICT & Social Media • NIMBYISM • Rural infrastructure • Consumer Eth0ics • Producer Motivation
Technological:
• Energy Generation & Use efficiency • EU Innovation Union / Horizon 2020 • Rise of National / Corporate technological ‘super-
powers’ • IT , Social Media & Communications technology • Remote Sensing Technologies • Robotics • ‘Omics technologies – Bioscience & Bioinformatics • Water Management • Game changers – “Unknown Unknowns” • Re-evaluation & Access constraints • GMOs & other contentious technologies • Impact of Aquaculture • Sliding real terms investment in technology
development
Legal:
• CAP reform • Food safety legislation • Anti-trust law • Intellectual Property Protection • Trade deals / WTO • Regulatory Environment & Compliance • Tax & Capital allowances • Planning Law Agricultural constraints & Potential
loss of productive land • Animal Welfare regulation
Environmental:
• Land Use trade-offs • Climate Change • Sustainability Issues & Metrics • Water & Soil Management • Resource Use Efficiency • Benefits / Valuing Non –Agricultural outputs of land • Waste Management • Biodiversity & Ecosystem services • Flood Control & Risk Management • Planning • Emerging Biotic pressures
Q2 - What Generic Areas of Research will have the most positive impact on the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in the next 20 years
• Precision / Smart Engineering ************* • Soil Biology, Rhizosphere & Water interactions ********** • System Level Research ************ • (Relevant & Objective)Sustainability Metrics ********* • Genetics & Marker Assisted Selection / ‘Omics’ & Understanding ‘Omic’
information****** • Social Science – Translation and Communication ***** • Nutrient Use Efficiency – Nitrogen ***** & Phosphorus ** • Protein Supply *** • Research Motivation, R&D resilience & Flexibility *** • Targeted KE/KT for differing needs *** • New Pest Management techniques ** (incl. Weed control) • GHGs and Soil (N2O) & Rumen (CH4) derived GHG mitigation * • Bio-Informatics • Non-Pathogenic Disease / Metabolic disorders in Livestock • Economics (Drivers and impacts of commodity speculation) • Chemical Engineering • Application of research from ESRC & NERC • Synthetic biology • Photosynthetic efficiency • Commodity Price Dynamics and emergence of alternative oil / protein sources
(Algae) • Artificial Meat
Q3 - What key Challenges / Research Needs were not highlighted / identified by Sector workshops?
• Systems Level Solution – Macro Level ******* • New / Emerging Crops (Grain Maize, Soya, Alfalfa )****** • Consumer Psychology / Behaviour & Trust ***** • Impact assessment of R&D / Technology by stakeholders (incl evidence) ** • Quality of Private Sector Research (capability) & Open Access - Using
Private Sector R&D for Wider Business benefit ** • Application of Genomics ** • Optimising N- Use* • Modelling Efficiency re GHGs* • Social Science* • Greater Industrial / Academic Collaboration * • Structural issues in R&D Capability (Soil , Weeds etc)* • Cell Level systems Biology • Decision Support Tools • (Bio-)chemical feedstocks for Industrial / Non-food use • Algae / Fungae as a source of Feed /Protein / Energy
Q4 - Given that current systems of Agricultural Production in the UK are driven largely by historical factors, what changes / Alternative Farming Systems should be investigated or researched to deliver sustainable Productivity growth and provision of environmental Goods in the Future? New Paradigms in Precision Agriculture
• Remote Monitoring, Control and Application Technologies • Protecting Soils – Controlled Traffic Farming • Protecting the environment – better targeting and timeliness of inputs • Environmental & Economic Benefits : Defined - Increased resource
use efficiency / Yield / reduced cost of compliance with regulations • Analysis, understanding and integration of Yield Mapping and Soil /
Crop monitoring data - • Decision Support tools • Outreach and training – KE/KT requirement • Compatability issues need to be resolved • Market pull – ‘Glorified Red tractor’ • Infrastructure investment • System design according to Topography & Soil type / cropping etc.
Application of Genomics in Livestock
• Move away from concept of ‘Breeds’ particularly in Dairy, Beef and
Sheep èCloser to Pig & Poultry sectors – System Focused Hybrids – Functional traits èRedesign of the animal to suit the system of production èUnderstanding & measuring commercially desirable traits èDevelopment / identification of key trait markers across breeds èPhenotyping & Data collection = Challenge of collecting quality, standardized data across supply chain
• Plant / Animal / Rumen Metagenomics – Optimizing production
systems • Recognise Challenges & learn from past mistakes (Dairy sector
historical +++ selection for milk yield alone è deteriorating robustness è Balabced breeding)
• Producer inertia / Motivation/ Power of Breed Societies • Consumer acceptance – Perceived value of Breeds / differentiation • THE PRECISION RUMINANT
Minimising Biotic Losses – Crops
• New Chemistry • New Biology • Integrated Pest Management • Mixed seed/variety cropping
Paradigm Change – ‘Learn to love Pathogens’
è work with Nature
• Primary Biomass Production ; How to Optimise • Pest & Disease Management with ‘Empty Toolbox’
è Multi factorial approach (ICM) • Core husbandry concepts (e.g. rotation) : No Magic Bullet
Paradigm Change - Integrated Mixed Farming – Co-location of specialist enterprises
è Mixed farming at Regional / Area level rather than individual farm level è Stop looking at the farm as the basic unit of measurement è Efficient nutrient recycling – minimizing losses è Optimising value from Co-products è ‘Circular Agricultural Economy’ – Identifying Risks and opportunities
• Wider cropping rotations – Move away from reliance on Wheat & OSR
èBreeding for Multi-purpose crops èHow to achieve Durable disease resistance ?
• Exploration of potential upside of Climate Change – Opportunity to
grow more high value crops è Transformation of Production systems.
Soils and Soil Management
• Soil Biology, Rhizosphere & Water/Nutrient interactions • Better understanding of Soil Pathogens and life cycles / interactions
with Soil Biota / crops èPlethora of Soil Borne disease pressures increasing
è No current solutions
èRequirement for National Soil Audit re Soil Health
è Public Funding issue – Value must be recognized
è Link outcomes to Yield Map Data to identify potential causal links
Valuing Ecosystem services and developing land use systems to optimize delivery where appropriate
• Tropical cropping systems / Wild Harvest – What can be learned? • Vertical Farming systems – Opportunities in light of climate change • Prudent Nutrient recycling • Dual Cropping / Mixed Farming systems (Silvo-pastoral production) • Paradigm Change ; Monitor Ecosystem service output (How to
Measure / Value) è Re-definition of mixed land use èrewarding ecosystem service e.g Agro-forestry
• Logistical problems of low volume production • Unit of accountancy for Ecosystem Services ( Catchment NOT Farm)
Endemic & Emerging Disease management & Eradication in Livestock
• Identified as Key Challenge / R&D priority theme in all animal sector workshops
• Major cause of reduced productivity and source of Waste / GHGs / welfare issues
• Economic, Environmental, Welfare & Resource use efficiency gains achievable ‘Quadruple win’ with few if any obvious trade-offs
• Does industry’s failure to adequately address this issue necessitate Public sector intervention, given strategic importance of potential outcome?
• Multivariate problem requires Strategic and Multifactorial approach including Farm level, Regional and National elements to Prevention, Management and Control of disease
èUnderstanding causal links – Genetic, Nutritional, Environmental, Management, Pathogen è Identification and use of reliable Health trait markers èBalanced breeding goals for healthier / robust livestock èInfluence of Stress and System design / Animal Environment on Immune System èOptimised management of Herd Health & Biosecurity at farm, regional and national level
• Development of Monitoring & Diagnostic technologies • Development Persistent and effective vaccines • Anti-Microbial resistance, and Stratified therapy for optimized control
strategies. • Health Economics – Understanding the true cost of sub-clinical,
chronic and acute infection for a range of key diseases / disorders • Effective KT/KE mechanisms to raise awareness and drive
widespread adoption of Best practice / New technology to improve herd health
Q5 - What other factors (Positive & Negative) will have a significant on Agricultural Production between now and 2030 and what role does R&D play in ensuring those impacts are optimized / mitigated against? Positive Factors :
1. Consolidation / Collaboration of Agricultural R&D with other strategic imperatives i.e. Energy & AD è Integrated management of Complexity èStructured approach to R&D programming 2. Climate Change opportunity
• Embrace systems Biology èIncrease diversity of genetic pool in Agricultural production è Increase resilience (Plants & Livestock)
3. Rising Demand for Food
• Drive for efficiency gains è GHG U energy balance
• Political Rhetoric è Action è Increasing recognition of importance of Agriculture Food Production ( DBIS & Defra)
• Impact of dietary change in developing world (meat consumption ++)
Risk Factors ; 1.Consolidation and increased unit size (without collaboration) è Need for Economic & Bioscience research
èNeed for key skills to manage Complexity & Integration of systems
2.Absence of bespoke agri–business training 3.New landowners: more contract farming –
• Short term planning horizon • Fragmentation of holdings • Lifestyle landowners / Nimbyism vs productivity • Potentially less commitment to driving productivity gains
4.Climate Change
• No National ADAPTATION PLAN • Conventional breeding techniques inadequate due to changing
environmental conditions • Expected +ve CO2 response may not occur due to other
limiting factors èRobust models required for plants & Animals
5. Carbon Accounting
• UK has irreducible minimum Agricultural Carbon Footprint è What is it?
6. Antimicrobial Resistance
• Concerns over resistance in humans limiting / reducing availability of veterinary drugs
• Disparity of regulatory system between major Production areas (EU vs US)
• Lack of R&D in Animal Health products 7. EU Regulatory System – Restricting uptake of new technology (GMOs, Cloning) and potential loss of existing technology (Assessment by hazard rather than risk) 8. Dietary Change in Developed world ( reduce meat consumption)
Appendix 4 Exemplars of successful integrated R&D programmes in the agricultural sector.
1. The Australian Model for Applied Agricultural Research: Rural Development Corporations
Rural development corporations commission agricultural research on a competitive basis amongst both public and private providers using funds from production levies that are matched (up to a ceiling of 0.5% of the value of production) by federal funds. There are currently 15 RDCs each based around single rural Industries, although there is considerable variation in their detailed terms of reference. In 2007 total RDC expenditure on traditional agricultural production research was ca A$ 0.5Bn (some 60% of total public expenditure on agricultural R&D and approximately 50% of the expenditure on production agriculture). This model is felt to have several advantages:
• Strong linkages to producers helps to ensure value for money • These linkages also promote rapid uptake by producers • The relatively large sums of money involved are used to promote
integrated approaches to R&D, particularly in areas where there are other funders
• RDCs are seen as a valuable intellectual resource in terms of expertise in rural research management that feeds through into policy issues
An economic analysis of value for money from R&D investment suggests that domestic research (50% of which comes via the RDCs) is responsible for about 60% of recent productivity increases in broad acre agriculture. The author suggests that, without this research, the real value of output would have contracted by around 50% between 1953 and 2008 (1). Recent reviews have identified challenges facing this model, although there is considerable debate over the need for and nature of reform. The current intention is to adapt rather than replace. The incentive for increased direct industry investment in R&D may be too low, and there is an argument about reducing the ceiling for matched federal funds. Small rural industries and overarching rural issues are not dealt with effectively by this system, and there is a risk that the terms of reference for some RDCs can limit their independence of action. The key lesson for the UK remains, however, the effectiveness of RDCs (a) in linking Industry and Government funding to deliver R&D that directly benefits Industry (b) in mobilising long-term private R&D investment in industries dominated by many small businesses where individual private investment would be unlikely or ineffective and (c) in providing a industry-aware focus for setting and delivering strategy. 1. Mullen, J (2010). Trends in Investment in Agricultural R&D in Australia and its Potential Contribution to Productivity. Australasian Agribusiness Review - Vol.18 - 2010, Paper 2, ISSN 1442-6951.
2. The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, St Simons Island,
Georgia, USA. CPBR is a non-profit NGO whose aim is to speed the transfer of plant biotechnologies from the research laboratory to the marketplace, expanding economic opportunities through university research and global networking. The consortium supports biotechnology research that has practical applications; advances technological innovations based on new understandings and uses of plants and other organisms; provides multidisciplinary training and research opportunities for a new generation of scientists and engineers; and connects industry needs with university and industry suppliers. CPBR’s generic (anonymous) list of company members’ research needs is updated annually by the companies. The list becomes part of the CPBR Request for Pre-proposals which is sent to member university scientists and administrators. It invites the scientists to respond to the company members’ research needs with short descriptions of proposed research projects. Full proposals for funding are submitted to the centre by a variety of academic providers. The selection process includes industrial evaluation of research concepts to insure industrial relevance and peer review to insure scientific excellence and funds requested from CPBR must be matched at least 1:1 by funds from companies and other non-federal sources, such as universities and foundations. Each proposal must have part of the required 1:1 matching come from a for-profit company as cash matching. Since 1989, over $120 M has been directed to projects, with non-federal funds accounting for almost $70M. In terms of outputs, Consortium-funded projects delivered over 200 patents, over 250 licenses and 5 start-up companies, but perhaps more importantly the success rate per unit of federal funding was significantly higher for patents, licences and peer-reviewed publications than the average for American Universities. The key lesson for the UK is in the advantages of linking more closely the aims and objectives of industrial funding in plant biotechnology with the programme of research funded by central government. Given the pressures on funding overall and the impetus for work on alternative land use, TSB and the Levy payers also have a key role to play in this area.
3. Canadian Agri-Science Clusters
Total funding of $68.5 million has been approved under the Canadian Agri-Science Clusters initiative of the Growing Canadian Agri-Innovations Program. This funding is being allocated toward 10 science clusters which are organized along commodity lines, as follows; beef cattle, dairy, swine/pork, poultry, canola/flax, pulse, wheat breeding, edible horticulture, ornamental horticulture, and organic agriculture.
The initiative provides financial funding contributions for recipients to carry out research projects with universities and other research and development organizations. Funding may also cover non-pay costs associated with research to be performed at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research facilities. The lead organization is accountable for the execution of the project and all associated reporting of expenditures and results.
Recipients must be not-for-profit agricultural corporations. These tend to occupy a niche similar to that of the UK Levy Bodies. Recipients must contribute financially toward the cost of research undertaken; industry contributions range from 15 per cent of the project cost to as high as 30 per cent.
This programme provides a potential model for individual levy bodies/producer groups to engage more effectively with basic and strategic research in areas that lie outside the generic research priorities identified in the body of the report. It does, however, rely heavily on earmarked federal funding.
4. The UK Crop Improvement Research Club (CIRC)
CIRC is a £7.06M, 5-year partnership between BBSRC, The Scottish Government and a consortium of leading companies, aimed at supporting innovative and excellent research to underpin the development of improved crop varieties. There is an urgent need to develop crop varieties with greater yield potential and the ability to deliver this sustainably with reduced inputs and without detrimental effects on the local ecosystem. Equally, new crop varieties are required that reliably and consistently produce high quality products that are safe, nutritious and meet end-user requirements.
The challenge for industry will be to achieve high yielding, high quality varieties that perform well in a commercial context against a background of greater environmental instability; particularly as a result of climate change.
The CIRC themes are:
• To support research leading to improved crop productivity. Sustainable improvements in crop productivity are important for increasing the volume of food the UK can produce, for limiting the land needed to produce this food and for improving the efficiency with which resources are used in crop production • To support research leading to improved crop quality. Improving quality can help to improve the processing, safety and nutritional value of crop products whilst also improving resource use efficiency. By understanding quality traits better there will also be scope for generating greater consistency in quality against a background of variation in growing conditions
CIRC will support research on oilseed rape, barley and wheat and their uses in food production for humans and animals.
14 companies have agreed to join CIRC to date. CIRC will support research projects from a joint fund totaling £7.06M with £6M coming from BBSRC, £0.56M from Industry and £0.5M from the Scottish Government.
This is a good UK example of an integrated programme structured around medium- and long-term producer needs that seeks to integrate basic and strategic research and link this to a clear delivery pathway. It is one of five research and technology clubs involving BBSRC.
